Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Morris Halle: still in ur field pwning ur theories

To launch a series on their emeritus faculty, MIT News has a piece on Morris Halle, widely regarded as the key figure in the development of modern phonological theory.

University propaganda ministries (as I've heard an employee of one refer to such operations) churn out tons of feel-good stuff about their great faculty, but Halle is vastly beyond that status. I think the article basically does him justice, and it has some real substance. In particular, there's a lot about Donca Steriade in the piece, a former student of Halle's now back at MIT.

Two years ago, a lot of virtual ink was spilled in posts on this blog about 'opacity' (start here and work back). The core issue here is whether phonology is derivational, involving a set of discrete steps, or can be done in a single step. Halle was central to developing the derivational view and Optimality Theory (OT) provided the monostratal challenge. Steriade didn't found OT, but she certainly helped lead the fight against the traditional view. Here's what she is quoted as saying in the article:
We may indeed run though a sequence of computations while turning underlying words into sounds, she suggests, so in this regard, while optimality theorists “hoped they were going to eliminate the view Morris has, it’s become obvious that’s not possible.”
She's hardly the first to concede the point, but this is the most direct admission I've seen. But Steriade …
believes there is still a “fundamental conceptual difference” between the views. While Halle describes words becoming sounds through a more arbitrary, ad-hoc series of conventions that evolve in a given language, Optimality Theory asserts that the conflicting preferences that apply to pronunciation are not arbitrary at all.
I don't have time to unpack that point right now, but will try to get back to it later. But maybe this post (or its title) will provoke some reaction.

14 comments:

Bridget Samuels said...

What a nice piece, and pretty amazing to have Donca saying that on the record. I am admittedly biased, but especially since McCarthy started with the harmonic serialism stuff, it really feels like the tide is turning.

Anonymous said...

Oh, the tide HAS turned. Not everybody realizes it yet, and not everybody will admit it yet, but it has turned.

Cassaday Rasmussen said...

Hello All You Lovey Doveys,

The tide has turned so far it is now surf! The youngest newly minted optimologists don't even know about the days of parallelism. This is the one advantage of only focusing on the last 10 years of theory internal writings. Mistakes can be relatively quickly remedied, forgotten and expunged from the record. Don't forget that OT will still slice your bread for you.

Love

Cassaday

Mr. Verb said...

Ahhhhh, Cassaday. Good to hear from you, and to be reminded that "PDA" isn't another name for a Palm Pilot. (Talk about ancient history!)

Time to catch some waves, I guess ...

The Stranded Preposition said...

On unpacking the final quote--there is a shared view here that Donca seems to be misguided on both points about generative and optimal phonology regarding arbitrariness. Of a number of hallmarks of Halle's legacy, one is that there are principles underlying phonology and it isn't arbitrary. Conversely, Faithfulness is a cover term for a certain type of aribtrariness.

Ed Keer said...

Gosh, I can't believe how Morris totally pwned OT! I better start reading up on rules and such!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that might be a good start. Or at least read up on harmonic serialism.

Mr. Verb said...

Now now, kids, play nice. (Seriously, no repeats of the earlier Opacity Wars.)

Adam Ussishkin said...

It's fun to sit back and read this and the ensuing comments :-)

Mr. Verb said...

Why do I feel like I've unleashed a firestorm?

Eric Bakovic said...

I love you guys.

Mr. Verb said...

It's mutual. ("Opacity Wars" was a probably failed attempt to play off of Randy Allen Harris' book.)

Ryan Bennett said...

Let's be clear here: McCarthy's views don't define OT theorizing, any more than (say) Antisymmetry defines P&P syntax. And rules may not slice your bread, but they (still) don't solve your conspiracies either.

Anonymous said...

"McCarthy's views don't define OT theorizing, any more than (say) Antisymmetry defines P&P syntax."

But Antisymmetry does define P&P syntax! Well, along with little v.